Environmental ethics

Reynolds highlights three dimensions of environmental ethics – normative, philosophical and political – in the context of a long-standing controversial development initiative for dam constructions in the Narmada river valley in India. In discussing these three dimensions, he promotes the importance of environmental ethics in fostering responsible development intervention. A version of this reading can be found in Environment, Development and Sustainability in the 21st Century: Perspectives and cases from around the world, edited by Gordon Wilson, Pam Furniss and Richard Kimbowa (2009), published by the Open University and Oxford University Press, for which the reading was originally commissioned

Kopy Luwak: a conservation strategy for global market

Subject area – Niche products and environmental ethics. Study level/applicability – The case is suitable for undergraduate students who have some understanding of competitive advantage in emerging economies, of niche products, the resource-based perspective and environmental ethics. Case overview – The case concerns the Indonesian coffee industry, specifically the production of Kopi Luwak, a coffee that involves a type of local wild animal as an essential part of the process. The case outlines a typical problem for a new leader who has to start his tenure with a creditable performance. The company is a resource-based one that has to manage a potential risk of violating environmental ethics. Expected learning outcomes – The case reveals the value of the international value chain for a cup of coffee. Through investigating the intersection between business feasibility and conservation issues, students should be able to understand what are appropriate business opportunities with environmental ethics considerations

Two Views of Animals in Environmental Ethics

This chapter concerns the role accorded to animals in the theories of the English-speaking philosophers who created the field of environmental ethics in the latter half of the twentieth century. The value of animals differs widely depending upon whether one adopts some version of Holism (value resides in ecosystems) or some version of Animal Individualism (value resides in human and nonhuman animals). I examine this debate and, along the way, highlight better and worse ways to conduct ethical arguments. I explain that two kinds of appeals (which I call intuition and reductio) are questionable foundations for environmental ethics and that representatives of both schools occasionally appeal unhelpfully to intuition or caricature the commitments of the other side. I review two stronger arguments for Ecoholism (inference and eco-organisms) and show that they have performed a useful function in environmental ethics. Ultimately, however, both arguments fail because their proponents are unable to answer four critical objections: weakness of will, no eco-organisms, no teleology, and is/ought. I then show that Animal Individualism operates on more secure footing when it comes to philosophical and scientific assumptions. I also propose that Animal Individualism is more likely to prove effective in establishing progressive environmental policies insofar as it builds on existing legal concepts, especially the concept of moral rights, and political institutions, such as democratic states. I note that wild animals are not inherently more valuable than domestic animals and, finally, offer a brief outline of an animal rights environmental ethic

Book review essay: Perspectives on environmental ethics

Most introductory texts in environmental ethics (and philosophy in general) are anthologies, and there are advantages to this approach. No philosopher is an expert on all aspects of the field, especially if practical concerns such as climate change, population, biodiversity and globalization are addressed. Moreover, if a course is taught by a single professor, an anthology exposes students to different positions on controversial topics written by their advocates, not merely mediated through the professor’s worldview. Another advantage is that students have to grapple with challenging material that was written for professionals and academics, not just students

An Investigation of Obligatory Anthropoholism as Plausible African Environmental Ethics

African ontological discourse revolves around a few principles, the interrelatedness of being, what is variously interpreted as communalism, ubuntu, Holism, communitarianism etc. This is the view that every being in the world, animate and inanimate are interconnected into a whole. This makes it possible for African environmental attitude to claim to be holistic. Since we are one, we care for each other, humans care for animals, plants, and mountains not because of what to gain from them but because we are the same and harming the river is same as harming oneself. The weakness of seeing African environmental ethics as only holistic is that it is not African enough as the paper will argue. The second principle in African ontological discourse is the human being. This principle has made scholars like Callicott and even some African scholars to describe African environmental ethics as anthropocentric. The paper also argues that branding African environmental ethics anthropocentric is not African enough. This is because Africans live in an interconnected world, comprising both the living, the dead and nature. Humans are only one privileged part of the whole and this is because of her obligatory role to nature and the world as a result of her capabilities. Through the method of analysis, the paper argues that a plausible African environmental ethics will be one that will blend the holistic nature of the African ontology and its pride of place given to humans. It will be discovered that obligatory anthropoholism can comfortably blend these two principles without necessarily being anthropocentric

Environmental Ethics

Excerpts from a new work by Larry Waggle (Philosophy) as featured in the Summer 2009 issue of SNC Magazine and captured as a part of a digital preservation project by Mulva Archives in Summer 2019

Environmental ethics

Includes bibliographical references (pages 529-530).Environmental ethics is theory and practice about appropriate concern for, values in, and duties regarding the natural world. By classical accounts, ethics is people relating to people in justice and love. Environmental ethics starts with human concerns for a quality environment, and some think this shapes the ethic from start to finish. Others hold that, beyond interhuman concerns, values are at stake when humans relate to animals, plants, species, and ecosystems. According to their vision, humans ought to find nature sometimes morally considerable in itself, and this turns ethics in new directions

Environmental Ethics

A number of areas of biology raise questions about what is of value in the natural environment and how we ought to behave towards it: conservation biology, environmental science, and ecology, to name a few. Based on my experience teaching students from these and similar majors, I argue that the field of environmental ethics has much to teach these students. They come to me with pent-up questions and a feeling that more is needed to fully engage in their subjects, and I believe some exposure to environmental ethics can help focus their interests and goals. I identify three primary areas in which environmental ethics can con- tribute to their education. The first is an examination of who (or what) should be considered to be part of our moral community (i.e., the community to whom we owe direct duties). Is it humans only? Or does it include all sentient life? Or all life? Or ecosystems considered holistically? Often, readings implicitly assume one or more of these answers; the goal is to make the student more sensitive to these implicit claims and to get them to think about the different reasons that support them. The second area, related to the first, is the application of the different answers concerning the extent of the ethical community to real environmental issues and problems. Students need to be aware of how the different answers concerning the moral community can imply conflicting answers for how we should act in certain cases and to think about ways to move toward conflict resolution. The third area in which environmental ethics can contribute is a more conceptual one, focusing on central concepts such as biodiversity, sustainability, species, and ecosystems. Exploring and evaluating various meanings of these terms will make students more reflective and thoughtful citizens and biologists, sensitive to the implications that different conceptual choices make